The story here is that the smaller internet providers won’t have access to the newer/faster connections that Bell and Telus setup. Also that internet access is not yet deemed an essential service.

Basically, there’s a lot of brewhaha about what net-neutrality really is. Financial issues are really the side-dish of the whole meal.
Net-neutrality is really about giving equal access to the material on the internet, i.e., not limiting P2P transfers, or skype calls.
The issue is not about the _physical_ connection nor about the cost of that access. The biggest earner for the internet provider is not the fastest (and therefor most expensive) connection, it’s the general user who pays for a reasonably fast connection then simply sends email and visits a few sites. Many reports already find Canada way behind the times with its internet costing and technology policies. The end-result in my opinion is, as more wireless providers enter the market (“more” means that an increase from 3 national providers to 4 with Globalive’s entrance which also relies on Rogers’ network), then internet providers will/should move to wireless technologies. This I think is an important step especially for a large land mass like Canada where physical connections as offered by Bell and Telus should take the back-seat.